|
Tour de France 11 Stage 20: Grenoble > Grenoble 42.5km
|
|
| Ad Bot |
Posted on 24-11-2024 23:30
|
Bot Agent
Posts: Countless
Joined: 23.11.09
|
|
| IP: None |
|
|
| binga58 |
Posted on 24-07-2011 07:44
|
Neo-Pro
Posts: 339
Joined: 03-08-2008
PCM$: 200.00
|
good job by cadel. i feel andy hides behind his team alot, and when its mono e mono like the TT then Cadel deserved to win! |
| |
|
|
| Guido Mukk |
Posted on 24-07-2011 11:52
|
Tour de France Champion
Posts: 15830
Joined: 08-02-2007
PCM$: 200.00
|
Great tour..It have been more perfect when Taaramäe would took white..
He did great ..survived a tour... was on he's best..ride great TT (was just 3 sec. slower then Dauphine).
But he admitted after d'huez replay..that loosing to that guy is not a shame. Guy who is worked he's ass off for team leader and then ride last alp stage like this. He knew already before TT..that it will be impossible to beat that new Rolland with TT..no way tour Rolland will loose him 2.30 again as at Dauphine.
Now we need to just wait..can Taaramäe improve after this tour max result.
Edited by Guido Mukk on 24-07-2011 11:53
|
| |
|
|
| BuzzingFridge |
Posted on 24-07-2011 18:01
|
Amateur
Posts: 19
Joined: 06-07-2010
PCM$: 200.00
|
cactus-jack wrote:
I'm glad Evans won the Tour, not because I'm a big fan (I'm not for him, nor am I against him), but because he is such a great rider and deserves a major win to look back on.
When it comes to Andy, I feel that we've seen a different side of him this year. I've always liked Andy and I still do, however I feel that he has been a bit more "winy" then usual. Hasn't he finished 2nd for 3 years in a row or something?
I think Andy needs to realise that to win the Tour (or any major race) it' s not enough to be great climber, you also have to be able to TT and descend, which is something he is rubbish at, quite frankly. Andy needs to have almost 3 minutes to spare before the final TT and that's very difficult. Previously he has walked away with the white jersey, this year Andy has nothing more to show for it then a single stage win.
Andy can't blame anyone but himself... he and Frank had the best team around him, but they lost time on the TT, lost time in the descents and didn't utilize their strenght (the mountains) well enough.
Andy, unless you want to end your career with ten 2nd places, improve your timetrailing and learn how to descend!
I totally agree. Andy's complaining after he lost time on Stage 17 was unprofessional and proves that he still isn't mature enough to win this race. If he were, he would take it on the chin and work hard on his descending to make sure it doesn't happen again. I don't like either of the Schleck brothers, but I will be content to see them win a future Tour de France, if they prove they are GC riders. In my opinion, they are still climbers and I'd rather see someone like Samuel Sanchez or Robert Gesink win. |
| |
|
|
| Aquarius |
Posted on 24-07-2011 18:09
|
Grand Tour Specialist
Posts: 5220
Joined: 29-11-2006
PCM$: 200.00
|
They're not necessarily unprofessional when they whine about it. They're mostly lobbying, IMO. |
| |
|
|
| BuzzingFridge |
Posted on 24-07-2011 18:17
|
Amateur
Posts: 19
Joined: 06-07-2010
PCM$: 200.00
|
If he raises his concerns after the Tour has finished, I don't have a problem. But to complain immediately, after you've lost time on a stage and when you know that it won't make any difference in the race, is unprofessional. |
| |
|
|
| MikhailM |
Posted on 24-07-2011 19:50
|
Under 23
Posts: 53
Joined: 08-03-2009
PCM$: 200.00
|
Just finished watching yesterday's stage...
Everyone is saying that Andy needs to learn how to TT, but to retain his yellow jersey in this stage, he would have had to finish in 56'37". That's faster than Cancellara, faster than Contador, and faster than Evans' time at the Dauphiné. That sounds to me about as likely to ever happen as Evans putting in repeated attacks on a mountain stage and dropping all the major GC contenders. It's not a matter of Andy having had a bad TT, but of Evans having put in an incredible one.
As for not taking advantage of the mountains, I'm not sure what people expected... he put in a 60-km attack, then followed Contador from 90 km out the next day (and didn't have too much left for Alpe d'Huez already after that) - how much more do you expect the guy to do and still have any strength left? Who knows how much of his not-too-great TT performance was due to his having spent so much energy the prior 2 days?
Evans was the strongest rider in this Tour, by quite some margin, and fully deserved the win. |
| |
|
|
| Aquarius |
Posted on 24-07-2011 22:12
|
Grand Tour Specialist
Posts: 5220
Joined: 29-11-2006
PCM$: 200.00
|
MikhailM wrote:
As for not taking advantage of the mountains, I'm not sure what people expected... he put in a 60-km attack, then followed Contador from 90 km out the next day (and didn't have too much left for Alpe d'Huez already after that) - how much more do you expect the guy to do and still have any strength left? Who knows how much of his not-too-great TT performance was due to his having spent so much energy the prior 2 days?
He could have been expected to seize his advantage, or at least seriously try to, in the Pyrénées for example. But that wasn't in the plan. So he lost it.
Like he lost it last year, by attacking too late on the first mountain stage. Attacking earlier wasn't in the plan either. |
| |
|
|
| MikhailM |
Posted on 24-07-2011 22:54
|
Under 23
Posts: 53
Joined: 08-03-2009
PCM$: 200.00
|
Aquarius wrote:He could have been expected to seize his advantage, or at least seriously try to, in the Pyrénées for example. But that wasn't in the plan. So he lost it.
Like he lost it last year, by attacking too late on the first mountain stage. Attacking earlier wasn't in the plan either.
Well, I'm not so convinced his advantage was all that great in the Pyrenees... Even on that Plateau de Beille stage where he "attacked" and got a gap in the last few hundred meters, it was Evans who came from near the back of the group to close the gap down to just 2 seconds.
And attacking earlier and more seriously in the Pyrenees would probably have meant he had somewhat less energy for the stages in the Alps, meaning a long attack would have been less effective there (not to mention that it would've been less likely for him to be allowed to go on such a move in the first place).
Anyway, I guess it's a bit silly to discuss all these "what if..." scenarios. The point simply is that for someone who's not great at TTs to win the Tour (against someone who is great) is extremely difficult, whether there are 100 km of TTs or 42. He'd have to have been a vastly superior climber to those competitors of his who are excellent at TTs, and that, this year, he wasn't. |
| |
|
|
| issoisso |
Posted on 24-07-2011 22:59
|
Tour de France Champion
Posts: 22918
Joined: 08-02-2007
PCM$: 200.00
|
I just hope next year we have a normal Tour. This crap of three consecutive years of the least TT kms ever is ridiculous.
I think the fact that guys like the Schlecks almost won the Tour says everything. With a normal route these guys would be 4-6 minutes down by the end.
A Tour winner should be an all-round rider. And that means be able to do more than just climb and whine.
Edited by issoisso on 24-07-2011 22:59
The preceding post is ISSO 9001 certified
"I love him, I think he's great. He's transformed the sport in so many ways. Every person in cycling has benefitted from Lance Armstrong, perhaps not financially but in some sense" - Bradley Wiggins on Lance Armstrong
|
| |
|
|
| Riis123 |
Posted on 24-07-2011 23:49
|
Grand Tour Specialist
Posts: 5075
Joined: 07-08-2008
PCM$: 200.00
|
Agreed, a short prologue at the start and two 40-50 km TTs or 50 km TT and 40-60 TTT.
For me, the most disappointing was that the TTT was that short. I remember back in the earlier days when the TTT were 60 km longs and somehow i miss it. You couldn't hide.
For me the most perfect route will be a short prologue, a 60 km TTT at stage 5 before heading into the Massif Central(a harder mountainfinish than Super Besse and a stage compared to that one to Saint Flour), have a little break before the Alps and climb a little easier climb than this year, maybe one mountaintop finish and one stage compared to what Fränk won in 2009, have a loong time trial at stage 15 before heading into the Pyrenees finishing at Saint Mary after climbing some of the mythical climbs (Peyresourde, Aspin, Tourmalet and Col d' Aubisque.
Buf of course it wouldn't happen. |
| |
|
|
| Roman |
Posted on 25-07-2011 00:46
|
Grand Tour Specialist
Posts: 4386
Joined: 29-05-2007
PCM$: 200.00
|
The problem is there are so little TT kms in all GTs. I can't believe that Tour de France had the most TT kilometers of all 3 Grand Tours this year..
Anyway, I agree, there should be more TT kilometers in any Grand Tour.
|
| |
|
|
| ruben |
Posted on 25-07-2011 01:48
|
Grand Tour Champion
Posts: 7721
Joined: 23-10-2006
PCM$: 200.00
|
more tt's are better because the climbers are forced to attack earlier
Now they did nothing in pyrenees and waited for alps... which funnily enough also caused the climbers downfall.
when there is 2 TT's then the climber must utilise every stage with cilimbing in it to stand a chance  even cat2 climbs |
| |
|
|
| Avin Wargunnson |
Posted on 25-07-2011 05:49
|
World Champion
Posts: 14236
Joined: 20-06-2011
PCM$: 300.00
|
ruben wrote:
more tt's are better because the climbers are forced to attack earlier
Now they did nothing in pyrenees and waited for alps... which funnily enough also caused the climbers downfall.
when there is 2 TT's then the climber must utilise every stage with cilimbing in it to stand a chance even cat2 climbs
This is exactly what i think.
Tour should be more for riders like Evans, Menchov, Nibali , prologue and two massive time-trials. Preventing riders like e.g. Rujano, Schleck bros. and similar from winning the biggest test of riders all-around ability (they have other two GTs for that). Climbers should still have a chance, but with far more attacking style they shown us this year.
For me not a great Tour to watch, mainly because od all that madness of first week. What GT is it when we have Voeckler almost on the podium? He is a great rider but seriously wouldnt be even in top 10 in normal circumstances
Edited by Avin Wargunnson on 25-07-2011 05:51
|
| |
|
|
| DJP19 |
Posted on 25-07-2011 05:53
|
Protected Rider
Posts: 1149
Joined: 07-05-2009
PCM$: 200.00
|
Winning breakaways can really influence a race. Note 2006 winner.
|
| |
|
|
| Avin Wargunnson |
Posted on 25-07-2011 05:58
|
World Champion
Posts: 14236
Joined: 20-06-2011
PCM$: 300.00
|
DJP19 wrote:
Winning breakaways can really influence a race. Note 2006 winner.
That is right,but that is not a case of Voecklers placement this year, he gained how much by that attack?2minutes?no wait it was 4,but you know what i mean.
Voeckler was just lucky with half of the favourites out of the game before Pyrennes, then yellow jesey gave him the wings
Edited by Avin Wargunnson on 25-07-2011 05:59
|
| |
|
|
| Talleyrand |
Posted on 25-07-2011 07:01
|
Under 23
Posts: 62
Joined: 19-03-2007
PCM$: 200.00
|
Aquarius wrote:
Talleyrand wrote:
HGH (Human Growth Hormone) is not a steroid but a protein.
Not all hormones are steroids.
Not all proteins are hormones.
Cortocosteroids have various pharmacological activities such as for instance anti-inflammatory. You can e.g. use them to cure a tennis elbow or certain skin diseases.
Mmm. I suppose some mistranslations are confusing me here, but thanks for helping. 
Biology lessons are also more than a decade behind, so what's left of my knowledge is probably outdated as well. 
To me a protein is a macromolecule, that you'll find in food, and that is used, a.o. to build muscular tissues.
HGH is a hormone, which is a substance (either body-produced, either synthetic) that stimulates muscles to grab more proteins to build up. I'm quite surprised to read it's a protein.
Steroids would be a general term for any substance that'd stimulate the muscles to build up (anabolism).
I agree with your definition and uses of corticosteroids (well, I'd be wrong if I disagreed to an expert anyway  ), but, given what's above, corticosteroids would rank among steroids, but there'd exist other steroids that wouldn't be cortioids.
Is that right ?
My whole point, if relevant, was that issoisso's claim that steroids have been allowed was an abusive generalisation, since only corticosteroids have been allowed.
Steroids is a term that covers chemical substances that have the same "skeleton" in their molecular structure. However, their pharmacological action may differ widely. Estrogens (female hormones) are for instance also steroids. If the guys will take that as dope they won't go faster but will develop breasts and will start to like the other riders much better.
So not all steroids will have a performance enhancing effect in sports.
Hormones is a term that refers to the way these substances (strongly) act upon the body. But chemically they can be very different: they can be steroids but e.g. also proteins.
Of course you can check all this easily in e.g. Wikipedia.
In conclusion: Stating that steroids have been allowed is an incorrect generalisation Clearly the use of androgens such as testosterone is still not allowed.
Fair players don't cheat
|
| |
|
|
| Guido Mukk |
Posted on 25-07-2011 10:46
|
Tour de France Champion
Posts: 15830
Joined: 08-02-2007
PCM$: 200.00
|
I don't like long TTT's ..then some riders will have hugh advantage thanks to strong (big money) team |
| |
|
|
| cunego59 |
Posted on 25-07-2011 11:30
|
Team Manager
Posts: 6508
Joined: 14-09-2008
PCM$: 1090.00
|
Guido Mukk wrote:
I don't like long TTT's ..then some riders will have hugh advantage thanks to strong (big money) team
Yep, I agree. Sammy Sanchez for example would never get the chance to do good in the GC with a, lets say, 70km TTT. I would prefer longer ITTs as well.
|
| |
|
